Personality and Values - · PDF fileIdentify the key traits in the Big Five personality model. 4. ... CHAPTER 3 Personality and Values Our personality shapes our behavior,

33

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain the factors that determine an individual’s personality.

2. Describe the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator personality framework.

3. Identify the key traits in the Big Five personality model.

4. Explain how the major personality attributes predict behavior at work.

5. Contrast terminal and instrumental values.

6. List the dominant values in today’s workforce.

7. Identify Hofstede’s five value dimensions of national culture.

C H A P T E R 3

Personality and Values

Our personality shapes our behavior, so if we want to better understand the behav-ior of someone in an organization, it helps if we know something about his or

her personality. In the first half of this chapter, we review the research on personalityand its relationship to behavior. In the latter half, we look at how values shape many ofour work-related behaviors.

PERSONALITY

Why are some people quiet and passive, whereas others are loud and aggressive? Arecertain personality types better adapted for certain job types? Before we can answerthese questions, we must address a more basic one: What is personality?

What Is Personality?

Personality can be thought of as the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts toand interacts with others. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits thata person exhibits.

ROBBMC03_0132431521.QXD 2/8/07 3:57 PM Page 33

34 Part II The Individual in the Organization

Personality Traits

The early research on the structure of personality revolved around attempts to iden-tify and label enduring characteristics that describe an individual’s behavior. Popularcharacteristics include shy, aggressive, submissive, lazy, ambitious, loyal, and timid.Those characteristics, when they’re exhibited in a large number of situations, arecalled personality traits.

Much attention has been paid to personality traits because researchers have longbelieved that these traits could help in employee selection, matching people to jobs, andin guiding career development decisions. For instance, if certain personality typesperform better on specific jobs, management could use personality tests to screen jobcandidates and improve employee job performance. However, early efforts to identifythe primary traits that govern behavior resulted in long lists of traits that providedlittle practical guidance to organizational decision makers. Two exceptions are theMyers–Briggs Type Indicator and the Big Five model. Over the past 20 years, these twoapproaches have become the dominant frameworks for identifying and classifying traits.

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)1

is the most widely used personality-assessment instrument in the world. It’s a 100-question personality test that asks people how they usually feel or act in particular sit-uations. On the basis of the answers individuals give to the test questions, theyare classified as extroverted or introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), think-ing or feeling (T or F), and judging or perceiving ( J or P). These terms are defined asfollows:

■ Extroverted Versus Introverted—Extroverted individuals are outgoing, sociable, andassertive. Introverts are quiet and shy.

■ Sensing Versus Intuitive—Sensing types are practical and prefer routine and order.They focus on details. Intuitives rely on unconscious processes and look at the bigpicture.

■ Thinking Versus Feeling—Thinking types use reason and logic to handle problems.Feeling types rely on their personal values and emotions.

■ Judging Versus Perceiving—Judging types want control and prefer their world to beordered and structured. Perceiving types are flexible and spontaneous.

These classifications are then combined into 16 personality types. Let’s take twoexamples. INTJs are visionaries. They usually have original minds and great drive fortheir own ideas and purposes. They are characterized as skeptical, critical, indepen-dent, determined, and often stubborn. ESTJs are organizers. They are realistic, logi-cal, analytical, and decisive and have a natural head for business or mechanics. Theylike to organize and run activities.

The MBTI is widely used by such organizations as Apple Computer, AT&T,GE, and the U.S. Armed Forces. In spite of its popularity, the evidence is mixed as towhether the MBTI is a valid measure of personality—with most of the evidence sug-gesting it isn’t.2 The best we can say is that it can be a valuable tool for increasing self-awareness and for providing career guidance. But because MBTI results tend to beunrelated to job performance, it probably should not be used as a selection test forchoosing among job candidates.


Chapter 3 Personality and Values 35

The Big Five Model In contrast to the MBTI, the five-factor model of personality—more typically called the Big Five—has received strong supporting evidence. Animpressive body of research, accumulated in recent years, supports that five basicdimensions underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation inhuman personality.3 The following are the Big Five factors:

■ Extroversion—This dimension captures one’s comfort level with relationships.Extroverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts tend to bereserved, timid, and quiet.

■ Agreeableness—This dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to oth-ers. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who scorelow on agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.

■ Conscientiousness—This dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientiousperson is responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score lowon this dimension are easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable.

■ Emotional stability (often labeled by its converse, neuroticism)—This dimension tapsa person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive emotional stability tend tobe calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with high negative scores tend to be ner-vous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.

■ Openness to experience—This dimension addresses one’s range of interests and fasci-nation with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and artistically sen-sitive. Those at the other end of the openness category are conventional and findcomfort in the familiar.

In addition to providing a unifying personality framework, research on the BigFive also has found relationships between these personality dimensions and job per-formance.4 Researchers examined a broad spectrum of occupations: professionals(including engineers, architects, accountants, attorneys), police, managers, salespeo-ple, and semiskilled and skilled employees. The results showed that conscientiousnesspredicted job performance for all occupational groups. Evidence also finds a relativelystrong and consistent relationship between conscientiousness and organizational citi-zenship behavior.5 This, however, seems to be the only Big Five personality dimen-sion that predicts OCB.

For the other personality dimensions, predictability depended on both the per-formance criterion and the occupational group. For instance, extroversion predictedperformance in managerial and sales positions. This finding makes sense becausethose occupations involve high social interaction. Similarly, openness to experiencewas found to be important in predicting training proficiency, which also seems logical.What wasn’t so clear was why positive emotional stability wasn’t related to job perfor-mance. Intuitively, it would seem that people who are calm and secure would performbetter in almost all jobs than people who are nervous and depressed. The answermight be that some aspects of negative emotional stability—such as nervousness—might actually help job performance. Consider a stock trader at a Wall Street firm. Ifshe fails to research all her options thoroughly and is never nervous about making thewrong transaction, she may fail to see the danger in, say, purchasing stock in a volatileyoung company. The other aspect of negative emotional stability—a depressiveoutlook—is bad for every job because when you’re depressed, it’s difficult to motivate



yourself, to make a decision, or to take a risk. So, it may be that negative emotionalstability has aspects that both help and hinder performance.

You may be interested to know that the Big Five have other implications forwork and for life. Let’s look at the implications of these traits one at a time.

Compared to introverts, extroverts tend to be happier in their jobs and in theirlives as a whole. They usually have more friends and spend more time in social situa-tions than introverts. But they also appear to be more impulsive, as evidenced by thefact that extroverts are more likely to be absent from work and engage in risky behav-ior such as unprotected sex, drinking, and other impulsive or sensation-seekingbehavior.6

You might expect agreeable people to be happier than disagreeable people, andthey are, but only slightly. When people choose romantic partners, friends, or organi-zational team members, agreeable individuals are usually their first choice. Agreeablechildren do better in school and as adults are less likely to get involved in drugs orexcessive drinking.7

Interestingly, conscientious people live longer because they tend to take bettercare of themselves (eat better, exercise more) and engage in fewer risky behaviors(smoking, drinking/drugs, risky sexual or driving behavior).8 Still, conscientiousnesshas its downside. It appears that conscientious people, probably because they’re soorganized and structured, don’t adapt as well to changing contexts. Conscientiouspeople are generally performance oriented. They have more trouble than less consci-entious people learning complex skills early on because their focus is on performingwell rather than on learning.

People who score high on emotional stability are happier than thosewho score low on emotional stability. Of the Big Five, emotional stabil-ity is most strongly related to life satisfaction, to job satisfaction, and tolow stress levels. High scores on emotional stability also are associatedwith fewer health complaints. One upside for low emotional stability:When in a bad mood, such people make faster and better decisions com-pared to emotionally stable people in bad moods.9

Finally, individuals who score high on openness to experience are more creativein science and in art, tend to be less religious, and are more likely to be politically lib-eral than those who score lower on openness to experience. Open people cope betterwith organizational change and are more adaptable in changing contexts.

Major Personality Attributes Influencing OB

Let’s evaluate several additional personality attributes that can be powerful predictorsof behavior in organizations:

■ Core self-evaluation■ Machiavellianism■ Narcissism■ Self-monitoring■ Risk taking■ Type A and proactive personalities

—Of the Big Five, emotionalstability is most stronglyrelated to life satisfaction,job satisfaction, and lowstress levels.


69


1. Outline the motivation process.

2. Describe Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

3. Summarize criticisms of Two-Factor Theory.

4. List the characteristics that high achievers prefer in a job.

5. Summarize the types of goals that increase performance.

6. Discuss ways self-efficacy can be increased.

7. State the impact of underrewarding employees.

8. Clarify the key relationships in expectancy theory.

C H A P T E R 5

Motivation Concepts

Motivation is one of the most frequently researched topics in OB. One reason forits popularity is revealed in a recent Gallup poll, which found that a majority of

U.S. employees—55 percent to be exact—have no enthusiasm for their work.1Clearly, this suggests a problem, at least in the United States. The good news is thatall this research provides us with considerable insights into how to improve motiva-tion. In this chapter, we discuss the basics of motivation and assess a number of earlyand contemporary theories of motivation.

DEFINING MOTIVATION

We define motivation as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direc-tion, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.2 While general motivation isconcerned with effort toward any goal, we’ll narrow the focus to organizational goals inorder to reflect our singular interest in work-related behavior.

Let’s examine the three key elements in our definition:

■ Intensity is concerned with how hard a person tries.■ However, high intensity is unlikely to lead to favorable job-performance outcomes

unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization.



■ Finally, motivation has a persistence dimension. This is a measure of how long a per-son can maintain effort.

Early Theories of Motivation

The 1950s were a fruitful period in the development of motivation concepts. Threespecific theories were formulated during this period that, although heavily attackedand now questionable in terms of validity, are probably still the best-known explana-tions for employee motivation: the hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, andthe two-factor theory. As you’ll see later in this chapter, we have since developed morevalid explanations of motivation, but you should know these early theories for at leasttwo reasons: (1) They represent a foundation from which contemporary theories havegrown, and (2) practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their termi-nology in explaining employee motivation.

Hierarchy of Needs Theory

It’s probably safe to say that the most well-known theory of motivation is AbrahamMaslow’s hierarchy of needs.3 Maslow hypothesized that within every human beingthere exists a hierarchy of five needs:

1. Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs.2. Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm.3. Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship.4. Esteem: Includes internal esteem factors, such as self-respect, autonomy, and

achievement, and external esteem factors, such as status, recognition, and attention.5. Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes

growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfillment.

As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dom-inant. In terms of Exhibit 5-1, the individual moves up the steps of the hierarchy.

Self-actualization

Esteem

Social

Safety

Physiological

EXHIBIT 5-1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Source: A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 3rd ed., R. D. Frager and J. Fadiman (eds.). © 1997. Adapted by permissionof Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.


Chapter 5 Motivation Concepts 71

From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need isever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. If you want tomotivate someone, according to Maslow, you must understand what level of thehierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying the needs at or abovethat level.

Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiologicaland safety needs were described as lower-order needs, and social, esteem, and self-actualization needs are categorized as higher-order needs. The differentiationbetween the two orders was made on the premise that higher-order needs are satis-fied internally (within the person), whereas lower-order needs are predominantlysatisfied externally (by things such as pay, union contracts, and tenure).

Maslow’s needs theory has received wide recognition, particularly among prac-ticing managers. Unfortunately, however, research does not validate the theory.Maslow provided no empirical substantiation, and several studies that sought to vali-date the theory found no support for it.4

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings: one basically nega-tive, labeled Theory X, and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y.5 Afterviewing the way in which managers dealt with employees, McGregor concluded thatmanagers’ views of the nature of human beings are based on a certain grouping ofassumptions and that managers tend to mold their behavior toward employees accord-ing to these assumptions.

Under Theory X, four assumptions are held by managers:

1. Employees inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it.2. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with

punishment to achieve goals.3. Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever

possible.4. Most workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will dis-

play little ambition.

In contrast to these negative views about the nature of human beings, McGregorlisted the four positive assumptions that he called Theory Y:

1. Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play.2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to the

objectives.3. The average person can learn to accept, even seek, responsibility.4. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the

population and is not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions.

What are the motivational implications if you accept McGregor’s analysis?The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory Xassumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that


175


1. Contrast leadership and management.

2. List the traits of effective leaders.

3. Define and give examples of the Ohio State leadership dimensions.

4. Compare and contrast trait and behavioral theories.

5. Describe Fiedler’s contingency model.

6. Define the qualities of a charismatic leader.

7. Contrast transformational with transactional leadership.

8. Identify when leadership may not be necessary.

9. Explain how to find and create effective leaders.

C H A P T E R 1 1

Leadership

Leaders can make the difference between success and failure. In this chapter, we’lllook at the basic approaches to determining what makes an effective leader and

what differentiates leaders from nonleaders. Here’s what we’ll discuss:

■ Present trait theories, which dominated the study of leadership up to the late 1940s■ Behavioral theories, which were popular until the late 1960s■ Contingency theories, which followed on the heels of behavioral theories■ Charismatic and transformational leadership, which currently are the dominant

approaches to the field of leadership

Before we review these approaches, let’s first clarify what we mean by the termleadership.

WHAT IS LEADERSHIP?

Leadership and management are terms that are often confused. How do they differ?John Kotter of the Harvard Business School argues that management is about

coping with complexity.1 Good management brings about order and consistency by

ROBBM C11_0132431521.QXD 2/8/07 4:31 PM Page 175

176 Part III Groups in the Organization

generating formal plans, designing rigid organization structures, and monitoringresults against the plans. Leadership, in contrast, is about coping with change. Leadersestablish direction by developing a vision of the future; then they align people by com-municating this vision and inspiring them to overcome hurdles.

Although Kotter provides separate definitions of the two terms, both researchersand practicing managers frequently make no such distinctions. So, we need to presentleadership in a way that can capture how it is used in theory and practice.

We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievementof a vision or set of goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as a per-son’s managerial rank in an organization. Because management positions come withsome degree of formally designated authority, a person may assume a leadership rolesimply because of the position he or she holds in the organization. However, not allleaders are managers, nor, for that matter, are all managers leaders. Just because man-agers are provided by their organizations with certain formal rights is no assurancethat they will be able to lead effectively. We find that nonsanctioned leadership—theability to influence that arises outside the formal structure of the organization—isoften as important, or more important, than formal influence. In other words, leaderscan emerge from within a group, as well as by formal appointment, to lead a group.

It is important to recognize that organizations need strong leadership and strongmanagement for optimal effectiveness. In today’s dynamic world, we need leaders tochallenge the status quo, to create visions of the future, and to inspire organization

members to want to achieve the visions. For instance, all Big Three automakers (Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler) had thought they were doing agood job managing their organizations, only to find out that they hadnot engaged in sufficient leadership to predict future trends (as had theircompetition, such as Toyota). We also need managers to formulatedetailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and overseeday-to-day operations.

Trait Theories

Throughout history, strong leaders—Buddha, Napoleon, Mao, Churchill, Thatcher,Reagan—have all been described in terms of their traits. For instance, when MargaretThatcher was prime minister of Great Britain, she was regularly described as confi-dent, iron willed, determined, and decisive.

Trait theories of leadership differentiate leaders from nonleaders by focusingon personal qualities and characteristics. Individuals like Margaret Thatcher, SouthAfrica’s Nelson Mandela, Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson, Apple cofounderSteve Jobs, former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and American Expresschairman Ken Chenault are recognized as leaders and described in terms such ascharismatic, enthusiastic, and courageous. The search for personality, social, physical, orintellectual attributes that describe leaders and differentiate them from nonleadersgoes back to the earliest stages of leadership research.

Research that was focused on isolating leadership traits resulted in a number ofdead ends. For instance, a review conducted in the late 1960s of 20 different studiesidentified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only 5 of these traits were common to 4 ormore of the investigations.2 By the 1990s, after numerous studies and analyses, aboutthe best thing that could be said was that most “leaders are not like other people,” but

—In today’s dynamic world,leadership has the ability toinfluence a group towardthe achievement of a visionor set of goals.


Chapter 11 Leadership 177

the particular traits that were isolated varied a great deal from review to review.3 It wasa pretty confusing state of affairs.

A breakthrough, of sorts, came when researchers began organizing traits aroundthe Big Five personality framework: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, and openness to experience (see Chapter 3). What became clear wasthat most of the myriad traits that emerged in various leadership reviews could be sub-sumed under one of the Big Five and that this approach resulted in consistent and strongsupport for traits as predictors of leadership. Ambition and energy—two common traitsof leaders—are part of extroversion. Rather than focusing on these two specific traits, itis better to think of them in terms of the more general trait of extroversion.

A comprehensive review of the leadership literature, when organized around theBig Five, has found that extroversion is the most important trait of effective leaders.4But results show that extroversion is more strongly related to leader emergence thanto leader effectiveness. This is not totally surprising since sociable and dominant peo-ple are more likely to assert themselves in group situations. Conscientiousness andopenness to experience also showed strong and consistent relationships to leadership,though not quite as strong as extroversion. The traits of agreeableness and emotionalstability weren’t as strongly correlated with leadership. Overall, it does appear that thetrait approach does have something to offer. Leaders who are extroverted (like beingaround people and are able to assert themselves), conscientious (are disciplined andkeep commitments they make), and open (are creative and flexible) do seem to have anadvantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting that good leaders do have key traitsin common.

Recent studies indicate that another trait may indicate effective leadership: emo-tional intelligence (EI), which we discussed in Chapter 7. Advocates of EI argue thatwithout it, a person can have outstanding training, a highly analytical mind, a com-pelling vision, and an endless supply of terrific ideas but still not make a great leader.This may be especially true as individuals move up in an organization. It appears thatEI is critical to effective leadership because one of its core components is empathy.Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what followers say (and don’tsay), and read the reactions of others. As one leader noted, “The caring part of empa-thy, especially for the people with whom you work, is what inspires people to stay witha leader when the going gets rough. The mere fact that someone cares is more oftenthan not rewarded with loyalty.”5

Despite these claims for its importance, the link between EI and leadershipeffectiveness is much less investigated compared to other traits. One reviewernoted, “Speculating about the practical utility of the EI construct might be prema-ture. Despite such warnings, EI is being viewed as a panacea for many organizationalmalaises with recent suggestions that EI is essential for leadership effectiveness.”6

But until more rigorous evidence accumulates, we can’t be confident about theconnection.

Based on the latest findings, we offer two conclusions:

1. Traits can predict leadership. Twenty years ago, the evidence suggested otherwise,but this was probably due to the lack of a valid framework for classifying and orga-nizing traits. The Big Five seems to have rectified that.

2. Traits do a better job of predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance ofleadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.7



The fact that an individual exhibits the traits and others consider that person to be aleader does not necessarily mean that the leader is successful at getting his or hergroup to achieve its goals.

Behavioral Theories

The presumed failures of early trait studies led researchers in the late 1940s throughthe 1960s to go in a different direction. They began looking at the behaviors exhibitedby specific leaders. They wondered if something was unique in the way that effectiveleaders behave. To use contemporary examples, Siebel Systems Chairman Tom Siebeland Oracle CEO Larry Ellison have been very successful in leading their companiesthrough difficult times.8 And they both rely on a common leadership style—toughtalking, intense, autocratic. Does this suggest that autocratic behavior is a preferredstyle for all leaders? In this section, we look at three different behavioral theories ofleadership to answer that question. First, however, let’s consider the practical impli-cations of the behavioral approach.

If the behavioral approach to leadership were successful, it would have implica-tions quite different from those of the trait approach. Trait research provides a basisfor selecting the “right” persons to assume formal positions in groups and organiza-tions requiring leadership. In contrast, if behavioral studies were to turn up criticalbehavioral determinants of leadership, we could train people to be leaders. The differ-ence between trait and behavioral theories, in terms of application, lies in their under-lying assumptions. Trait theories assume leaders are born rather than made. However,if specific behaviors characterize leaders, we could teach leadership—we could designprograms that implanted these behavioral patterns in individuals who desired to beeffective leaders. This is surely a more exciting avenue, for it means that the supply of leaders could be expanded. If training worked, we could have an infinite supply ofeffective leaders.

Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioral the-ories resulted from research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s.Researchers at Ohio State sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behav-ior. Beginning with over a thousand dimensions, they eventually narrowed the list totwo categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behaviordescribed by employees. They called these two dimensions initiating structure andconsideration.

Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define andstructure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. Itincludes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. Theleader characterized as high in initiating structure could be described as someone whoassigns group members to particular tasks, expects workers to maintain definite stan-dards of performance, and emphasizes the meeting of deadlines. Larry Ellison andTom Siebel exhibit high initiating structure behavior.

Consideration is described as the extent to which a person is likely to have jobrelationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, andregard for their feelings. Such a person shows concern for followers’ comfort, well-being, status, and satisfaction. A leader high in consideration could be described asone who helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, andtreats all employees as equals. AOL Time Warner’s CEO Richard Parsons rates high



emotions—especially anger—that interfered with an employee’s ability to work effectively.They rarely viewed emotions as constructive or able to enhance performance.

Certainly some emotions, particularly when exhibited at the wrong time, canreduce employee performance. But this doesn’t change the fact that employees bringtheir emotional sides with them to work every day and that no study of OB could becomprehensive without considering the role of emotions in workplace behavior.

WHAT ARE EMOTIONS AND MOODS?

Although we don’t want to obsess over definitions, before we can proceed with ouranalysis, we need to clarify three terms that are closely intertwined: affect, emotions,and moods.

Affect is a generic term that covers a broad range of feelings that people experi-ence. It’s an umbrella concept that encompasses both emotions and moods.4Emotions are intense feelings that are directed at someone or something.5 There aredozens of emotions, including anger, contempt, enthusiasm, envy, fear, frustration,disappointment, embarrassment, disgust, happiness, hate, hope, jealousy, joy, love,pride, surprise, and sadness. Moods are feelings that tend to be less intense than emo-tions and that often lack a contextual stimulus.6 Exhibit 7-1 shows the relationshipsamong affect, emotions, and mood.

As Exhibit 7-1 shows, emotions tend to be more fleeting than moods.7 Forexample, if someone is rude to you, you’ll feel angry. That intense feeling of angerprobably comes and goes fairly quickly, maybe even in a matter of seconds. Whenyou’re in a bad mood, though, you can feel bad for several hours.

Emotions• Caused by specific event• Very brief in duration (seconds or minutes)• Specific and numerous in nature (many specific emotions such as anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, surprise)• Usually accompanied by distinct facial expressions• Action oriented in nature

Moods• Cause is often general and unclear• Last longer than emotions (hours or days)• More general (two main dimensions— positive affect and negative affect— that are comprised of multiple specific emotions)• Generally not indicated by distinct expressions• Cognitive in nature

AffectDefined as a broad range of feelings that people experience.Affect can be experienced in the form of emotions or moods.

EXHIBIT 7-1 Affect, Emotions, and Moods


Chapter 7 Emotions and Moods 109

In addition, emotions are reactions to a person (seeing a friend at work maymake you feel glad) or event (dealing with a rude client may make you feel angry). Youshow your emotions when you’re “happy about something, angry at someone, afraidof something.”8 Moods, in contrast, aren’t usually directed at a person or event. Butemotions can turn into moods when you lose focus on the event or object that startedthe feeling. For example, when a colleague criticizes how you spoke to a client, youmight become angry at him. That is, you show emotion (anger) toward a specificobject (your colleague). But as the specific emotion dissipates, you might just feel gen-erally dispirited. You can’t attribute this feeling to any single event; you’re just notyour normal self. This affect state describes a mood.

Another difference between emotions and moods lies in the way we express eachtype of feeling. For example, unlike moods, emotions tend to be more clearly revealedwith facial expressions (anger, disgust). Also, some researchers speculate that emotionsmay be more action oriented—they may lead us to some immediate action—whereasmoods may be more cognitive, meaning they may cause us to think or brood for a while.9

Finally, the exhibit shows that emotions and moods can mutually influence eachother. For example, an emotion, if it’s strong and deep enough, can turn into a mood:Getting your dream job may generate the emotion of joy, but it also can put you in agood mood for several days. Similarly, if you’re in a good or bad mood, it might makeyou experience a more intense positive or negative emotion than would otherwise bethe case. For example, if you’re in a bad mood, you might blow up in response to acoworker’s comment when normally it would have just generated a mild reaction.

Although affect, emotions, and moods are separable in theory, in practice thedistinction isn’t always crystal clear. In fact, in some areas, researchers have studiedmostly moods, and in other areas, mainly emotions. So, when we review the OB top-ics on emotions and moods, you may see more information on emotions in one areaand moods in another. This is simply the state of the research.

Some Aspects of Emotions

We must consider some other fundamental aspects of emotions, such as the biology ofemotions, the intensity of emotions, their frequency and duration, the relationshipbetween rationality and emotions, and the functions of emotions. Let’s deal with eachof these aspects in turn.

The Biology of Emotions All emotions originate in the brain’s limbic system, whichis about the size of a walnut and near our brain stem.10 People tend to be happiest(report more positive than negative emotions) when their limbic systems are relativelyinactive. When the limbic system becomes active, negative emotions such as anger andguilt dominate over positive ones such as joy and happiness. Overall, the limbic systemprovides a lens through which you interpret events. When it’s active, you see things ina negative light. When it’s inactive, you interpret information more positively.

Not everyone’s limbic system is the same. Moderately depressed people havemore active limbic systems, particularly when they encounter negative information.11

And women tend to have more active limbic systems than men, which, some argue,explains why women are more susceptible to depression than men and are more likelyto bond emotionally with children.12 Of course, as always, these are average differences:Women are more likely to be depressed than men, but that doesn’t mean that alldepressed people are women or that men are incapable of bonding with their kids.



Intensity People give different responses to identical emotion-provoking stimuli. Insome cases, personality is responsible for the difference. Other times, it’s a result ofthe job requirements.

People vary in their inherent ability to express emotional intensity. You mayknow people who almost never show their feelings. They rarely get angry. They nevershow rage. In contrast, you probably also know people who seem to be on an emo-tional roller coaster. When they’re happy, they’re ecstatic. When they’re sad, they’redeeply depressed. We’ll explore the impact personality has on an individual’s emotionsin more detail later on in this chapter.

Jobs make different demands on our emotions. For instance, air traffic con-trollers, surgeons, and trial judges are expected to be calm and controlled, even instressful situations. Conversely, the effectiveness of television evangelists, public-address announcers at sporting events, and lawyers can depend on their ability to altertheir emotional intensity as the need arises.

Frequency and Duration Some emotions occur more frequently than others (mostpeople are amused more often than they are enraged). Emotions also differ in howlong they last (one might feel sad for a minute, or for hours). Sean Wolfson is basicallya quiet and reserved person. He loves his job as a financial planner. He doesn’t enjoy,however, having to give speeches to increase his visibility and to promote his pro-grams. But he still has to give speeches occasionally. “If I had to speak to large audi-ences every day, I’d quit this business,” he says. “I think this works for me becauseI can fake excitement and enthusiasm for an hour, a couple of times a month.”

Whether an employee can successfully meet the emotional demands of a givenjob depends not only on what emotions need to be displayed and their intensity butalso on how frequently and for how long they need to make the effort.

Do Emotions Make Us Irrational? How often have you heard someone say “Oh,you’re just being emotional”? You might have been offended. The famous astronomerCarl Sagan once wrote, “Where we have strong emotions, we’re liable to fool our-selves.” These observations suggest that rationality and emotion are in conflict withone another and that if you exhibit emotion, you are likely to act irrationally. Oneteam of authors argues that displaying emotions like sadness, to the point of crying, isso toxic to a career that we should leave the room rather than allow others to witnessour emotional display.13 The author Lois Frankel advises women to avoid being emo-tional at work because it will undermine how others rate their competence.14 Theseperspectives suggest that the demonstration or even experience of emotions is likely tomake us seem weak, brittle, or irrational. However, the research disagrees and isincreasingly showing that emotions are actually critical to rational thinking.15 In fact,there has been evidence of such a link for a long time.

Take the example of Phineas Gage. Gage was a railroad worker in Vermont. OneSeptember day in 1848, while setting an explosive charge at work, a three-foot, seven-inch iron bar flew into Gage’s lower left jaw and out through the top of his skull.Remarkably, Gage survived his injury. He was still able to read and speak, and he per-formed well above average on cognitive ability tests. However, it became clear thatGage had lost his ability to experience emotion. He was emotionless at even the sad-dest misfortunes or happiest occasions. Gage’s inability to express emotion eventuallytook away his ability to reason. He started making irrational choices about his life,



often behaving erratically and against his self-interests. Despite being an intelligentman whose intellectual abilities were unharmed by the accident, Gage drifted fromjob to job, eventually taking up with a circus.

The example of Phineas Gage and many other brain injury studies show us thatemotions are critical to rational thinking. We must have the ability to experience emo-tions to be rational because our emotions provide important information about how weunderstand the world around us. Although we might think of a computer asintellectually superior, a human so void of emotion would be unable tofunction. Think about a manager making a decision to fire an employee.Would you really want the manager to make the decision without regard-ing either his or the employee’s emotions? The key to good decisionmaking is to employ both thinking and feeling in one’s decisions.

What Functions Do Emotions Serve? Why do we have emotions? What role dothey serve? We just discussed one function: that we need them to think rationally.Charles Darwin, however, took a broader approach. In The Expression of the Emotionsin Man and Animals, Darwin argued that emotions developed over time to helphumans solve problems. Emotions are useful, he said, because they motivate peopleto engage in actions important for survival—actions such as foraging for food, seek-ing shelter, choosing mates, guarding against predators, and predicting others’behaviors. For example, disgust (an emotion) motivates us to avoid dangerous orharmful things (such as rotten foods). Excitement (also an emotion) motivates us totake on situations in which we require energy and initiative (for example, tackling anew career).

Drawing from Darwin are researchers who focus on evolutionary psychology.This field of study says we must experience emotions—whether they are positive ornegative—because they serve a purpose.16 For example, you would probably considerjealousy to be a negative emotion. Evolutionary psychologists would argue that itexists in people because it has a useful purpose. Mates may feel jealousy to increase thechance that their genes, rather than a rival’s genes, are passed on to the next genera-tion.17 Although we tend to think of anger as being “bad,” it actually can help us pro-tect our rights when we feel they’re being violated. For example, a person showinganger when she’s double-crossed by a colleague is serving a warning to others not torepeat the same behavior. It’s not that anger is always good. But as with all other emo-tions, it exists because it serves a useful purpose. Positive emotions also serve a pur-pose. For example, a service employee who feels empathy for a customer may providebetter customer service.

Some researchers are not firm believers in evolutionary psychology. To under-stand why, consider fear (an emotion) and that it’s just as easy to think of the harmfuleffects of fear as it is the beneficial effects. For example, running in fear from a preda-tor increases the likelihood of survival. But what benefit does freezing in fear serve?Evolutionary psychology provides an interesting perspective on the functions ofemotions, but it’s hard to know whether or not this perspective is valid all the time.18

Sources of Emotions and Moods

Where do emotions and moods come from? Even though emotions are thought tobe more influenced by events than moods, ironically, researchers have conductedmore studies on the sources of moods than on the sources of particular emotions.

—Our emotions provideimportant information abouthow we understand theworld around us.



So, now we’ll turn to the main sources of moods, though a lot of these sources alsoaffect emotions.

Personality Noel and Jose are coworkers. Noel has a tendency to get angry when acolleague criticizes her ideas during a brainstorming session. Jose, however, is quite calmand relaxed, viewing such criticism as an opportunity for improvement. Personalitypredisposes people to experience certain moods and emotions. For example, some peo-ple feel guilt and anger more readily than others do. Others may feel calm and relaxedno matter the situation. In other words, moods and emotions have a trait component tothem: Most people have built-in tendencies to experience certain moods and emotionsmore frequently than others do. But, as we mentioned earlier, some people are predis-posed to experience any emotion more intensely. Such people are high on affect inten-sity, or “individual differences in the strength with which individuals experience theiremotions.”19 So, emotions differ in their intensity, but people also differ in how predis-posed they are to experience emotions intensely. If a person gets really mad at acoworker, he would be experiencing an emotion intensely. But if that person gets mad,or excited, really easily, then he would be high on the personality trait of affect intensity.

Day of the Week and Time of the Day Most people are at work or school Mondaythrough Friday. For most of us, that means the weekend is a time of relaxation andleisure. Does that suggest that people are in their best moods on the weekends? Well,actually, yes. As Exhibit 7–2 shows, people tend to be in their worst moods (highestnegative affect and lowest positive affect) early in the week and in their best moods(highest positive affect and lowest negative affect) late in the week.20

What about the time of day? When are you usually in your best mood? Yourworst? We often think that people differ, depending on whether they are “morning”

Negative moods are highest on Sundays andMondays and fall throughout the week

Positive moods are highestat the end of the week

Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.

Day of the week

Mo

od

High

Low

Average

Positive affect Negative affect

EXHIBIT 7-2 Our Moods Are Affected by the Day of the Week

Source: D. Watson, Mood and Temperament, New York, Guilford Publications, 2006.



or “evening” people. However, the vast majority of us follow a similar pattern. Peopleare generally in lower spirits early in the morning. During the course of the day, ourmoods tend to improve and then decline in the evening. Interestingly, regardless ofwhat time people go to bed at night or get up in the morning, levels of positive affecttend to peak around the halfway point between waking and sleeping. Negative affect,however, shows little fluctuation throughout the day.21

What does this mean for organizational behavior? Asking someone for a favor orconveying bad news are probably not good ideas on Monday morning. Our workplaceinteractions will probably be more positive from mid-morning onward, as well as laterin the week.

Weather When do you think you would be in a better mood? When it’s 70 degreesand sunny or when it’s a gloomy, cold, rainy day? Many people believe their mood istied to the weather. However, evidence suggests that weather has little effect on mood.One expert concluded, “Contrary to the prevailing cultural view, these data indicatethat people do not report a better mood on bright and sunny days (or, conversely, aworse mood on dark and rainy days).”22 Illusory correlation explains why people tend tothink that nice weather improves their mood. Illusory correlation occurs when peo-ple associate two events that in reality have no connection.

Stress As you might imagine, stress affects emotions and moods. At work, stressfuldaily events (a nasty e-mail, an impending deadline, the loss of a big sale, being repri-manded by your boss, and so on) negatively affect employees’ moods. Also, the effectsof stress build over time. As the authors of one study note, “a constant diet of evenlow-level stressful events has the potential to cause workers to experience graduallyincreasing levels of strain over time.”23 Such mounting levels of stress and strain atwork can worsen our moods, and we experience more negative emotions.

Social Activities For most people, social activities increase positive mood and havelittle effect on negative mood. But do people in positive moods seek out social interac-tions, or do social interactions cause people to be in good moods? It seems that bothare true.24 And, does the type of social activity matter? Indeed it does. Research sug-gests that physical (skiing or hiking with friends), informal (going to a party), or epi-curean (taking pleasure in eating) activities are more strongly associated with increasesin positive mood than formal (attending a meeting) or sedentary (watching TV withfriends) events.25

Social interactions even have long-term health benefits. One study of longevityfound that being in the company of others (as opposed to being socially isolated) wasone of the best predictors of how long someone lives—more important than gender, oreven blood pressure or cholesterol levels.26 One of the reasons for this is positive affect.

Sleep According to a recent poll, people are getting less and less sleep. On average,Americans sleep less than seven hours per weekday night—below the eight-hour rec-ommendation. And the number of people who actually sleep eight or more hours anight has steadily decreased over the past few years to about one in four. Roughly75 percent of those polled reported having at least one symptom of a sleep problem afew nights a week or more within the past year.27

As you might imagine, sleep quality affects mood. Undergraduates and adultworkers who are sleep deprived report greater feelings of fatigue, anger, and hostil-ity.28 One of the reasons why less sleep, or poor sleep quality, puts people in a bad



mood is that it impairs decision making and makes it difficult to control emotions.29

A recent study suggests that poor sleep the previous night also impairs people’s jobsatisfaction the next day, mostly because people feel fatigued, irritable, and less alert.30

Exercise You often hear that people should exercise to improve their mood. Butdoes “sweat therapy” really work? It appears so. Research consistently shows thatexercise enhances people’s positive mood.31 It appears that the therapeutic effects ofexercise are strongest for those who are depressed. Although the effects of exercise onmoods are consistent, they are not terribly strong. So, exercise may help put you in abetter mood, but don’t expect miracles.

Age Do you think that young people experience more extreme, positive emotions(so-called “youthful exuberance”) than older people do? If you answered “Yes” youwere wrong. One study of people aged 18 to 94 years revealed that negative emotionsseem to occur less as people get older. Periods of highly positive moods lasted longerfor older individuals and bad moods faded more quickly.32 The study implies thatemotional experience tends to improve with age, so that as we get older we experiencefewer negative emotions.

Gender The common belief is that women are more in touch with their feelingsthan men are—that they react more emotionally and are better able to read emotionsin others. Is there any truth to these assumptions?

The evidence does confirm differences between men and women when it comesto emotional reactions and the ability to read others. In contrasting the genders,women show greater emotional expression than men.33 They experience emotionsmore intensely, and they display more frequent expressions of both positive and nega-tive emotions, except anger.34 In contrast to men, women also report more comfort inexpressing emotions. Finally, women are better at reading nonverbal (e.g., facialexpressions, body language) and paralinguistic cues, such as vocal quality, loudness,and tempo, than are men.35

One explanation for these differences is the different ways men and women havebeen socialized.36 Men are taught to be tough and brave, whereas women are social-ized to be nurturing. A second explanation is that women may have more innate abil-ity to read others and present their emotions than do men.37 Third, women may havea greater need for social approval and, so, a higher propensity to show positive emo-tions, such as happiness.

External Constraints on Emotions

An emotion that is acceptable on the athletic playing field may be totally unacceptablewhen exhibited at the workplace. Similarly, what’s appropriate in one country is ofteninappropriate in another. In this section, we look at organizational and cultural influ-ences on emotions.

Organizational Inf luences If you can’t smile and appear happy, you’re unlikely tohave much of a career working at a Disney amusement park. Although there is no sin-gle emotional “set” that all organizations worldwide seek in their employees, in theUnited States the evidence indicates that there’s a bias against the expression of nega-tive and intense emotions.38 Of course, such expressions are acceptable in someinstances—for example, a brief grieving over the sudden death of a company’s CEO or



the celebration of a record year of profits. But for the most part, the climate in well-managed U.S. organizations is one that strives to be emotion free.

Cultural Influences Does the degree to which people experience emotions varyacross cultures? Do people’s interpretations of emotions vary across cultures? Finally,do the norms for the expression of emotions differ across cultures? Let’s tackle each ofthese questions one at a time.

Does the degree to which people experience emotions vary across cultures? Yes. In China,for example, people report experiencing fewer positive and negative emotions thanpeople in other cultures report, and whatever emotions the people in China do expe-rience are less intense than what others report. Compared to Mainland Chinese,Taiwanese are more like Americans in their experience of emotions: On average,Taiwanese report more positive and fewer negative emotions than their MainlandChinese counterparts.39 In general, people in most cultures appear to experience cer-tain positive and negative emotions, but the frequency of their experiences and theirintensity do vary to some degree.

Do people’s interpretations of emotions vary across cultures? In general, people from allover the world interpret negative and positive emotions the same way. We all view neg-ative emotions, such as hate, terror, and rage, as dangerous and destructive. And we alldesire positive emotions—such as joy, love, and happiness. However, some culturesvalue certain emotions more than others. For example, Americans value enthusiasmwhereas Chinese consider negative emotions to be more useful and constructive thando Americans. In general, pride is seen as a positive emotion in Western, individualisticcultures such as the United States, but Eastern cultures such as China and Japan tendto view pride as undesirable.40

Do the norms for the expression of emotions differ across cultures? Absolutely. Forexample, Muslims see smiling as a sign of sexual attraction, so women have learnednot to smile at men.41 And research has shown that in collectivist countries people aremore likely to believe that emotional displays have something to do with their ownrelationships with the people expressing the emotions, whereas people in individualis-tic cultures do not think that others’ emotional expressions are directed at them.42

Interestingly, some cultures lack words for standard American emotional termssuch as anxiety, depression, and guilt. Tahitians, for example, don’t have a word directlyequivalent to sadness. When Tahitians are sad, their peers attribute their stateto a physical illness.43 Our discussion illustrates the need to consider cul-tural factors as influencing what managers consider emotionally appropri-ate. What’s acceptable in one culture may seem extremely unusual or evendysfunctional in another. Managers need to know the emotional norms ineach culture they do business in so they don’t send unintended signals ormisread the reactions of locals. For example, an American manager inJapan should know that whereas Americans tend to view smiling positively,Japanese are apt to attribute frequent smiling to a lack of intelligence.44

Emotional Labor

All employees expend physical and mental labor when they put their bodies and cog-nitive capabilities, respectively, into their jobs. But jobs also require emotional labor,which is an employee’s expression of organizationally desired emotions during inter-personal transactions at work.45

—Managers need to knowthe emotional norms ineach culture they dobusiness in so they don’tsend unintended signals ormisread the reactions oflocals.



The concept of emotional labor emerged from studies of service jobs, whichmakes sense given that these jobs demand employees to consistently display positiveemotions. But really, emotional labor is relevant to almost every job. Managers expectemployees to be courteous, not hostile, in interactions with coworkers. The true chal-lenge is when employees have to project one emotion while simultaneously feelinganother.46 This disparity is emotional dissonance, and it can take a heavy toll onemployees. Left untreated, bottled-up feelings of frustration, anger, and resentmentcan eventually lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout.47

Felt Versus Displayed Emotions

It can help you, on the job especially, if you separate emotions into felt or displayed.48

Felt emotions are an individual’s actual emotions. In contrast, displayed emotionsare those that the organization requires workers to show and considers appropriate ina given job. They’re not innate; they’re learned. Thus, effective managers havelearned to be serious when giving an employee a negative performance evaluation andto hide their anger when they’ve been passed over for promotion. And the salespersonwho hasn’t learned to smile and appear friendly, regardless of his true feelings at themoment, isn’t typically going to last long on most sales jobs. How we experience anemotion isn’t always the same as how we show it.49

Displaying fake emotions requires us to “act”—to suppress the emotions wereally feel (not showing anger toward a customer, for example). Surface acting is hid-ing one’s inner feelings and forgoing emotional expressions in response to displayrules. For example, when a worker smiles at a customer even when he doesn’t feel likeit, he is surface acting. Deep acting is trying to modify one’s true inner feelings basedon display rules. A health-care provider trying to genuinely feel more empathy for herpatients is deep acting.50 Research shows that surface acting is more stressful toemployees because it entails concealing one’s true emotions.51

As we’ve noted, emotional norms vary across cultures. Cultural norms in theUnited States dictate that employees in service organizations should smile and actfriendly when interacting with customers.52 But this norm doesn’t apply worldwide.In Israel, customers see smiling supermarket cashiers as inexperienced, so managersencourage cashiers to look somber.53 And Wal-Mart has found that its emphasis onemployee friendliness, which has won it a loyal following among U.S. shoppers,doesn’t work in Germany. Accustomed to a culture in which the customer tradition-ally comes last, serious German shoppers have been turned off by Wal-Mart’s friendlygreeters and helpful personnel.54

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

People who know their own emotions and are good at reading others’emotions may be more effective in their jobs. That, in essence, is thetheme underlying research on emotional intelligence (EI)—one’sability to detect and manage emotional cues and information.55

EI is composed of five dimensions:

■ Self-awareness: being aware of what you’re feeling■ Self-management: the ability to manage your own emotions and impulses

—People who know theirown emotions and are goodat reading others’ emotionsmay be more effective intheir jobs.



prepared for the strike by hiring replacement workers in advance and, when the unionstruck, hired replacement workers and calmly asked for even more concessions.82

Customer Service

A worker’s emotional state influences customer service, which influences levels ofrepeat business and levels of customer satisfaction.83 Providing quality customer ser-vice makes demands on employees because it often puts them in a state of emotionaldissonance. Over time, this state can lead to job burnout, declines in job performance,and lower job satisfaction.84

In addition, employees’ emotions may also be transferred to the customer.Studies indicate a matching effect between employee and customer emotions, whichOB practitioners call emotional contagion, the “catching” of emotions from oth-ers.85 How does emotional contagion work? The primary explanation is that whensomeone experiences positive emotions and laughs and smiles at you, you begin tocopy that person’s behavior. So when employees express positive emotions, customerstend to respond positively. Emotional contagion is important because when customerscatch the positive moods or emotions of employees, they shop longer.86 But whatabout negative emotions and moods? Are they contagious too? Absolutely. When anemployee is cranky or nasty, these negative emotions tend to have negative effects oncustomers.

Job Attitudes

Ever hear the advice “Never take your work home with you,” meaning that peopleshould forget about their work once they go home? As it turns out, that’s easier saidthan done. Several studies have shown that people who had a good day at work tend tobe in a better mood at home that evening. And people who had a bad day tend to be ina bad mood once they’re at home.87 Evidence also suggests that people who have astressful day at work have trouble relaxing once they get off work.88

Even though people do emotionally take their work home with them, by thenext day the effect is usually gone.89 So, though it may be hard or even unnatural to“never take your work home with you,” it doesn’t appear that, for most people, a neg-ative mood resulting from a bad day at work carries over to the next day.

Deviant Workplace Behaviors

Anyone who has spent much time in an organization realizes that people often behavein ways that violate established norms and that threaten the organization, its mem-bers, or both. Many of these deviant behaviors can be traced to negative emotions.

For instance, envy is an emotion that occurs when you resent someone for hav-ing something that you don’t have but that you strongly desire, such as a better workassignment, larger office, or higher salary.90 It can lead to malicious deviant behaviors.An envious employee, for example, could then act hostilely by backstabbing anotheremployee, negatively distorting others’ successes, and positively distorting his ownaccomplishments.91 Evidence suggests that people who feel negative emotions, partic-ularly those who feel angry or hostile, are more likely than people who don’t feel neg-ative emotions to engage in deviant behavior at work.92



employ them merely as vehicles for their careers. Terminal values such as a sense ofaccomplishment and social recognition rank high with them.

Xers (Generation X ) lives have been shaped by globalization, two-career parents,MTV, AIDS, and computers. They value flexibility, life options, and the achievementof job satisfaction. Family and relationships are very important to this cohort. UnlikeVeterans, Xers are skeptical, particularly of authority. They also enjoy team-orientedwork. Money is important as an indicator of career performance, but Xers are willingto trade off salary increases, titles, security, and promotions for increased leisure timeand expanded lifestyle options. In search of balance in their lives, Xers are less willingto make personal sacrifices for the sake of their employer than previous generationswere. On the RVS, they rate high on true friendship, happiness, and pleasure.

The most recent entrants to the workforce, the Nexters (also called Neters,Millennials, Generation Y, and Generation Next) grew up during prosperous times butfind themselves entering a post-boom economy. Though they face insecurity abouttheir jobs and careers, they have high expectations and seek meaning in their work.Nexters are at ease with diversity and are the first generation to take technology forgranted. They’ve lived much of their lives with ATMs, DVDs, cell phones, laptops,and the Internet. This generation tends to be money oriented and desirous of thethings that money can buy. They seek financial success. Like Xers, they enjoy team-work, but they’re also highly self-reliant. They tend to emphasize terminal values suchas freedom and a comfortable life.

An understanding that individuals’ values differ but tend to reflect the societalvalues of the period in which they grew up can be a valuable aid in explaining and pre-dicting behavior. Employees in their late sixties, for instance, are more likely to acceptauthority than their coworkers who are 10 or 15 years younger. And workers in theirthirties are more likely than their parents to balk at having to work weekends and moreprone to leave a job in mid-career to pursue another that provides more leisure time.

Values, Loyalty, and Ethical Behavior

Has there been a decline in business ethics? Although the issue is debatable, a lot ofpeople think ethical standards began to erode in the late 1970s.45 If ethical standardshave declined, perhaps we should look to our work cohorts model (see Exhibit 3-3) fora possible explanation. After all, managers consistently report that the action of theirbosses is the most important factor influencing ethical and unethical behavior in theirorganizations.46 Given this fact, the values of those in middle and upper managementshould have a significant bearing on the entire ethical climate within an organization.

Through the mid-1970s, the managerial ranks were dominated by Veterans,whose loyalties were to their employers. When faced with ethical dilemmas, theirdecisions were made in terms of what was best for their organizations. Beginning inthe mid- to late 1970s, Boomers began to rise into the upper levels of management. Bythe early 1990s, Boomers held a large portion of middle and top management posi-tions in business organizations. The loyalty of Boomers is to their careers. Their focusis inward, and their primary concern is with looking out for themselves. Such self-centered values would be consistent with a decline in ethical standards. Could thishelp explain the alleged decline in business ethics beginning in the late 1970s?

The potential good news in this analysis is that Xers are now in the process ofmoving into middle-management slots and soon will be rising into top management.


Chapter 3 Personality and Values 45

Since their loyalty is to relationships, they are more likely to consider the ethicalimplications of their actions on others around them. The result? We might look for-ward to an uplifting of ethical standards in business over the next decade or twomerely as a result of changing values within the managerial ranks.

Values Across Cultures

Because values differ across cultures, an understanding of these differences should behelpful in explaining and predicting behavior of employees from different countries.

Hofstede’s Framework for Assessing Cultures One of the most widely refer-enced approaches for analyzing variations among cultures was done in the late 1970sby Geert Hofstede.47 He surveyed more than 116,000 IBM employees in 40 countriesabout their work-related values. He found that managers and employees vary on fivevalue dimensions of national culture. They are listed and defined as follows:

■ High power distance versus low power distance: Power distance is the degreeto which people in a country accept that power in institutions and organizations isdistributed unequally. A high-power-distance rating means that large inequalities ofpower and wealth exist and are tolerated in the culture. Such cultures are more likelyto follow a class or caste system that discourages upward mobility of its citizens.A low-power-distance ranking indicates the culture discourages differences betweenpower and wealth. These societies stress equality and opportunity.

■ Individualism versus collectivism: Individualism is the degree to which peopleprefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups and believe in individualrights above all else. Collectivism emphasizes a tight social framework in which peopleexpect others in groups of which they are a part to look after them and protect them.

■ Masculinity versus femininity: These dimensions reflect the degree to which theculture favors traditional masculine roles such as achievement, power, and controlversus a culture that views men and women as equals. A high-masculinity rating indi-cates the culture has separate roles for men and women, with men dominating thesociety. A high-femininity rating means that the culture has little differentiationbetween male and female roles. High femininity does not mean that the cultureemphasizes feminine roles; rather, it emphasizes equality between men and women.

■ Uncertainty avoidance: This is the degree to which people in a country preferstructured over unstructured situations. In cultures that score high on uncertaintyavoidance, people have an increased level of anxiety about uncertainty and ambiguity.Such cultures tend to emphasize laws, regulations, and controls that are designed toreduce uncertainty. In cultures that score low on uncertainty avoidance, individualsare less dismayed by ambiguity and uncertainty and have a greater tolerance for avariety of opinions. Such cultures are less rule oriented, take more risks, and morereadily accept change.

■ Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation: This newest addition toHofstede’s typology focuses on the degree of a society’s long-term devotion to tradi-tional values. People in cultures with long-term orientations look to the future andvalue thrift, persistence, and tradition. In a short-term orientation, people value thehere and now, change is accepted more readily, and commitments do not representimpediments to change.


Chapter 13 Conflict and Negotiation 219

Consultants generally agree that creating functional conflict is a tough job, par-ticularly in large U.S. corporations. As one consultant put it, “A high proportion ofpeople who get to the top are conflict avoiders. They don’t like hearing negatives; theydon’t like saying or thinking negative things. They frequently make it up the ladder inpart because they don’t irritate people on the way up.” Another suggests that at least7 out of 10 people in U.S. business hush up when their opinions are at odds with thoseof their superiors, allowing bosses to make mistakes even when they know better.

Such anticonflict cultures may have been tolerable in the past but not in today’sfiercely competitive global economy. Organizations that don’t encourage and supportdissent may find their survival threatened. Let’s look at some approaches organiza-tions are using to encourage their people to challenge the system and develop freshideas.

Hewlett-Packard rewards dissenters by recognizing go-against-the-grain types,or people who stay with the ideas they believe in even when those ideas are rejectedby management. Herman Miller Inc., an office furniture manufacturer, has a formalsystem in which employees evaluate and criticize their bosses. IBM also has aformal system that encourages dissension. Employees can question their bosses withimpunity. If the disagreement can’t be resolved, the system provides a third party forcounsel. Royal Dutch Shell Group, General Electric, and Anheuser-Busch builddevil’s advocates into the decision process. When the policy committee at Anheuser-Busch considers a major move, such as getting into or out of a business or making amajor capital expenditure, it often assigns teams to make the case for each side of thequestion. This process frequently results in decisions and alternatives that hadn’t beenconsidered previously.

One common ingredient in organizations that successfully create functionalconflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. The real challenge formanagers, however, occurs when they hear news that they don’t want to hear. Thenews may make their blood boil or their hopes collapse, but they can’t show it. Theyhave to learn to take the bad news without flinching. No tirades, no tight-lipped sar-casm, no eyes rolling upward, no gritting of teeth. Rather, managers should ask calm,even-tempered questions: “Can you tell me more about what happened?” “What doyou think we ought to do?” A sincere “Thank you for bringing this to my attention”will probably reduce the likelihood that managers will be cut off from similar commu-nications in the future.

Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—now we turnto negotiation. Negotiation and conflict are closely related because negotiation oftenresolves conflict.

NEGOTIATION

Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organiza-tions. There’s the obvious: Labor bargains with management. There’s the not so obvi-ous: Managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses; salespeople negotiate withcustomers; purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. And there’s the subtle: Anemployee agrees to answer a colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for somepast or future benefit. In today’s loosely structured organizations, in which membersare increasingly finding themselves having to work with colleagues over whom they



have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss,negotiation skills become critical.

We define negotiation as a process in which two or more parties exchangegoods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.16 Note thatwe’ll use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.

Bargaining Strategies

There are two general approaches to negotiation: distributive bargaining andintegrative bargaining. As Exhibit 13-3 shows, distributive and integrative bargainingdiffer in goal and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration ofrelationship. Let’s examine the differences between these two approaches.

Distributive Bargaining Let’s say you see a used car advertised for sale in the news-paper. It appears to be just what you’ve been looking for. You go out to see the car. It’sgreat and you want it. The owner tells you the asking price. You don’t want to pay thatmuch. The two of you then negotiate over the price. The negotiating strategy you’reengaging in is called distributive bargaining. Its most identifying feature is that itoperates under zero-sum conditions. That is, any gain I make is at your expense, andvice versa. Referring back to the used-car example, every dollar you can get the sellerto cut from the car’s price is a dollar you save. Conversely, every dollar more theseller can get from you comes at your expense. So the essence of distributive bargain-ing is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. The fixed pie conceptmeans the bargaining parties believe there only a finite amount of goods or servicesare available to be divvied up. Therefore, fixed pies are zero-sum games. When partiesbelieve the pie is fixed, they tend to bargain distributively.

Probably the most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is inlabor–management negotiations over wages. Typically, labor’s representatives come tothe bargaining table determined to get as much money as possible out of manage-ment. Because every cent more that labor negotiates increases management’s costs,

EXHIBIT 13-3 Distributive Versus Integrative Bargaining

Bargaining Characteristic Distributive Bargaining Integrative BargainingGoal Get as much of the pie as possible Expand the pie so that both parties

are satisfiedMotivation Win–lose Win–winFocus Positions (“I can’t go beyond this Interests (“Can you explain why this

point on this issue.”) issue is so important to you?”)Interests Opposed CongruentInformation Low (sharing information will High (sharing information will allow sharing only allow other party to take each party to find ways to satisfy

advantage) interests of each party)Duration of Short term Long termrelationship



each party bargains aggressively and treats the other as an opponent who must bedefeated.

The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 13-4. Parties A andB represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what he or she wouldlike to achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest acceptableoutcome—the point below which they would break off negotiations rather thanaccept a less-favorable settlement. The area between these two points makes up eachone’s aspiration range. As long as A’s and B’s aspiration ranges have some overlap,there is a settlement range in which each one’s aspirations can be met.

When engaged in distributive bargaining, one’s tactics focus on trying to getone’s opponent to agree to a specific target point or to get as close to it as possible.Examples of such tactics are persuading your opponent of the impossibility of gettingto his or her target point and the advisability of accepting a settlement near yours;arguing that your target is fair, while your opponent’s isn’t; and attempting to get youropponent to feel emotionally generous toward you and thus accept an outcome closeto your target point.

Integrative Bargaining Let’s say a sales representative for a women’s sportswearmanufacturer has just closed a $15,000 order from a small clothing retailer. The salesrep calls in the order to her firm’s credit department. She is told that the firm can’tapprove credit to this customer because of a past slow-payment record. The next day,the sales rep and the firm’s credit manager meet to discuss the problem. The sales repdoesn’t want to lose the business. Neither does the credit manager, but he also doesn’twant to get stuck with an uncollectible debt. The two openly review their options.After considerable discussion, they agree on a solution that meets both of their needs:The credit manager will approve the sale, but the clothing store’s owner will provide abank guarantee that will ensure payment if the bill isn’t paid within 60 days. Thissales-credit negotiation is an example of integrative bargaining. In contrast to dis-tributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that one ormore settlements can create a win–win solution.

In terms of intraorganizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bar-gaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term

Party A’s aspiration range

Settlementrange

Party B’s aspiration range

Party A’stargetpoint

Party B’sresistance

point

Party A’sresistance

point

Party B’stargetpoint

EXHIBIT 13-4 Staking Out the Bargaining Zone



relationships and bonds negotiators, allowing them to leave the bargaining table feel-ing that they have achieved a victory. Distributive bargaining, however, leaves oneparty a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepen divisions when people have towork together on an ongoing basis.

Why, then, don’t we see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answerlies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. To bargain inte-gratively, you need to disclose your true interests to the other party, and this requires acertain amount of trust. Also, you often need to inquire about the other party’s interestsand to be sensitive to their needs. Because these conditions often don’t exist in organiza-tions, it isn’t surprising that negotiations often take on a win-at-any-cost dynamic.

The Negotiation Process

Exhibit 13-5 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotia-tion as made up of five steps:

1. Preparation and planning2. Definition of ground rules3. Clarification and justification4. Bargaining and problem solving5. Closure and implementation17

Preparation and Planning Before you start negotiating, you need to do yourhomework. What’s the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to thisnegotiation? Who’s involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict?

Preparation andplanning

Definition ofground rules

Clarification andjustification

Bargaining andproblem solving

Closure andimplementation

EXHIBIT 13-5 The Negotiation Process



What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? If you’re a supplymanager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant costreduction from your supplier of keyboards, make sure that this goal stays paramountin your discussions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. It often helps to putyour goals in writing and develop a range of outcomes—from “most hopeful” to “min-imally acceptable”—to keep your attention focused.

You also want to prepare an assessment of what you think the other party’s goalsare. What are they likely to request? How entrenched are they likely to be in theirposition? What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? What mightthey be willing to settle on? When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, youare better equipped to counter arguments with the facts and figures that support yourposition.

The importance of sizing up the other party is illustrated by the experience ofKeith Rosenbaum, a partner in a major Los Angeles law firm. “Once when we werenegotiating to buy a business, we found that the owner was going through a nastydivorce. We were on good terms with the wife’s attorney and we learned the seller’snet worth. California is a community-property-law state, so we knew he had to payher half of everything. We knew his time frame. We knew what he was willing to partwith and what he was not. We knew a lot more about him than he would have wantedus to know. We were able to twist him a little bit, and get a better price.”18

Once you’ve gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. For exam-ple, expert chess players have a strategy. They know ahead of time how they willrespond to any given situation. As part of your strategy, you should determine yoursand the other side’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). YourBATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement.For example, an airline may find that at a certain level of settlement, the cost ofhiring replacement workers is the same. Thus, in negotiating, hiring replacementworkers would be its BATNA. Any offer you receive that is higher than yourBATNA is better than an impasse. Conversely, you shouldn’t expect success in yournegotiation effort unless you’re able to make the other side an offer it finds moreattractive than its BATNA. If you go into your negotiation having a good idea ofwhat the other party’s BATNA is, even if you’re not able to meet it, you might beable to get it changed.

Definition of Ground Rules Once you’ve done your planning and developed astrategy, you’re ready to begin defining the ground rules and procedures with theother party for the negotiation itself. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it takeplace? What time constraints, if any, will apply? To what issues will negotiation belimited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? Duringthis phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

Clarification and Justification When initial positions have been exchanged,both you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify youroriginal demands. This needn’t be confrontational. Rather, it’s an opportunity foreducating and informing each other on the issues, why they are important, and howeach of you arrived at their initial demands. This is the point at which you mightwant to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support yourposition.



Bargaining and Problem Solving The essence of the negotiation process is theactual give-and-take involved in hashing out an agreement. It is here where conces-sions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

Closure and Implementation The final step in the negotiation process is formaliz-ing the agreement that has been negotiated and developing any procedures that arenecessary for implementation and monitoring. Major negotiations—labor–managementnegotiations, bargaining over lease terms, buying a piece of real estate, negotiating a joboffer for a senior management position—will require hammering out the specifics in aformal contract. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothingmore formal than a handshake.

Individual Differences in Negotiation

We conclude our discussion of negotiation by reviewing whether some individuals arebetter negotiators than others. We focus on three characteristics: personality, gender,and cultural differences.

Personality Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know some-thing about his or her personality? It’s tempting to answer “Yes” to this question. Youmight assume that high-risk takers would be more aggressive bargainers who makefewer concessions. Surprisingly, the evidence hasn’t always supported this intuition.

Assessments of the personality–negotiation relationship have held that personal-ity traits have no significant direct effect on either the bargaining process or the nego-tiation outcomes. However, recent research has started to question this conclusion. Infact, it appears that several of the Big Five traits are related to negotiation outcomes.For example, negotiators who are agreeable or extraverted are not very successfulwhen it comes to distributive bargaining. This is so because extraverts are outgoingand friendly, so they tend to share more information than they should. And, agreeablepeople are more interested in finding ways to cooperate rather than butt heads. Thesetraits, while slightly helpful in integrative negotiations, are liabilities when interestsare opposed.19 So, the best distributive bargainer appears to be a disagreeable introvert—that is, someone who is interested in his own outcomes rather thanpleasing the other party and having a pleasant social exchange.

A big ego can also affect negotiations. For example, Samantha is an executivewith a major clothing manufacturer. She is convinced that everything she touchesturns to gold, and she cannot stand to look bad. An important contract with one ofher company’s suppliers just came up for negotiation. Excited, Samantha thinks shewill take the reins during the negotiation process, but her boss tells her she is off thenegotiating team. Is her boss smart to keep such a hardliner off the case? Absolutely.A study found that individuals who are concerned with appearing competent andsuccessful in negotiations (that is, saving face)—can have a negative effect on theoutcome of the negotiation process. Such individuals were less likely to reachagreements than those who were less concerned with coming out on top. This isbecause those who are overly competitive in negotiating negotiate to look goodpersonally rather than to attain the best agreement for all concerned.20 Sothose who are able to check their egos at the door are able to negotiate betteragreements—for themselves and for others, whether the bargaining situation isdistributive or integrative.



Gender Do men and women negotiate differently? And does gender affect negotia-tion outcomes? The answer to the first question appears to be “No.”21 The answer tothe second is a qualified “Yes.”22

A popular stereotype held by many is that women are more cooperative andpleasant in negotiations than are men. The evidence doesn’t support this belief.However, men have been found to negotiate better outcomes than women, althoughthe difference is relatively small. Researchers have postulated that this differencemight be due to men and women placing divergent values on outcomes. “It is possiblethat a few hundred dollars more in salary or the corner office is less important towomen than forming and maintaining an interpersonal relationship.”23

The belief that women are “nicer” than men in negotiations is probably due toconfusing gender and the lower power traditionally held by women in most large orga-nizations. The research indicates that low-power managers, regardless of gender,attempt to placate their opponents and use softly persuasive tactics rather than directconfrontation and threats. In situations in which women and men have similar powerbases, there shouldn’t be any significant differences in their negotiation styles. It’s inter-esting to note that when typical stereotypes are activated—that is, women are “nicer”and men are “tougher”—it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing the stereotyp-ical gender differences between male and female negotiators.24 For example, Maria mayset lower aspirations and give in more readily when negotiating because she thinks, evensubconsciously, that’s how women are expected to bargain. Similarly, Sunil may think hehas to bargain aggressively because he believes that’s how men are expected to negotiate.

The evidence suggests that women’s attitudes toward negotiation and towardthemselves as negotiators appear to be quite different from men’s. Managerial womendemonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied withtheir performance after the process is complete, even when their performance and theoutcomes they achieve are similar to those for men.25 This latter conclusion suggeststhat women may penalize themselves unduly by failing to engage in negotiations whensuch action would be in their best interests.

Cultural Differences Negotiating styles clearly vary across national cul-tures.26 The French like conflict. They frequently gain recognition anddevelop their reputations by thinking and acting against others. As a result,the French tend to take a long time in negotiating agreements and they aren’toverly concerned about whether their opponents like or dislike them.27 The Chinese alsodraw out negotiations, but that’s because they believe negotiations never end. Just whenyou think you’ve pinned down every detail and reached a final solution with a Chineseexecutive, that executive might smile and start the process all over again. The Chinese—and the Japanese, too—negotiate to develop a relationship and a commitment to worktogether rather than to tie up every loose end.28 Compared to American negotiators, theJapanese communicate indirectly and adapt their behaviors to the situation.29 Americansare known around the world for their impatience and their desire to be liked.30 Astutenegotiators from other countries often turn these characteristics to their advantage bydragging out negotiations and making friendship conditional on the final settlement.

The cultural context of the negotiation significantly influences the following:

■ The amount and type of preparation for bargaining■ The relative emphasis on task versus interpersonal relationships

—Negotiating styles clearlyvary across nationalcultures.


IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

Managing ConflictMany people assume that conflict is related to lower group and organizational performance.This chapter has demonstrated that this assumption is often false. Conflict can be eitherconstructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. When it’s too high or too low,conflict hinders performance. At an optimal level, there is enough conflict to prevent stagna-tion, stimulate creativity, allow tensions to be released, and initiate the seeds for change, yetnot so much as to be disruptive.

What advice can we give to managers faced with excessive conflict and the need toreduce it? Don’t assume that one conflict-handling approach will always be best! Select theresolution technique appropriate for each situation. Here are some guidelines:33


■ The tactics used■ Where the negotiation should be conducted

To further illustrate some of these differences, let’s look at two studies that com-pare the influence of culture on business negotiations.

The first study compared North Americans, Arabs, and Russians.31 Among thefactors researchers examined were the negotiating style, how negotiators responded toan opponent’s arguments, their approach to making concessions, and how they han-dled negotiating deadlines. North Americans tried to persuade by relying on facts andappealing to logic. They countered opponents’ arguments with objective facts. Theymade small concessions early in the negotiation to establish a relationship and usuallyreciprocated their opponents’ concessions. North Americans treated deadlines as veryimportant. The Arabs tried to persuade by appealing to emotion. They counteredopponent’s arguments with subjective feelings. They made concessions throughoutthe bargaining process and almost always reciprocated their opponents’ concessions.Arabs approached deadlines very casually. The Russians based their arguments onasserted ideals. They made few, if any, concessions. Any concession offered by anopponent was viewed as a weakness and almost never reciprocated. Finally, theRussians tended to ignore deadlines.

The second study looked at verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics exhibitedby North Americans, Japanese, and Brazilians during half-hour bargaining sessions.32

Some of the differences were particularly interesting. For instance, the Brazilians onaverage said “No” 83 times, compared to 5 times for the Japanese and 9 times for theNorth Americans. The Japanese displayed more than 5 periods of silence lastinglonger than 10 seconds during the 30-minute sessions. North Americans averaged 3.5such periods; the Brazilians had none. The Japanese and North Americans inter-rupted their opponents about the same number of times, but the Brazilians inter-rupted 2.5 to 3 times more often than the North Americans and the Japanese. And,the Japanese and the North Americans had no physical contact with their opponentsduring negotiations except for handshaking, but the Brazilians touched each otheralmost 5 times every half hour.


Chapter 10 Communication 167

E-mail is still probably a better device for conveying long messages that need to be saved.IM is preferred for sending one- or two-line messages that would just clutter up an e-mailinbox. On the downside, some IM users find the technology intrusive and distracting.IM’s continual online presence can make it hard for employees to concentrate and stayfocused. Managers also indicate concern that IM will be used by employees to chat withfriends and colleagues about nonwork issues. Finally, because instant messages are easilybroken into, many organizations are concerned about IM security.

Intranet and Extranet Links An intranet is an organization-wide information net-work that looks and functions like a Web site but is accessible only to people within anorganization. Intranets are rapidly becoming a popular means for employees withincompanies to communicate with each other. IBM, as a case in point, recently broughttogether online 52,000 of its employees for what it called WorldJam.14 Using thecompany’s intranet, IBMers everywhere swapped ideas on everything from how toretain employees to how to work faster without undermining quality.

In addition, organizations are creating extranet links that connect internalemployees with selected suppliers, customers, and strategic partners. For instance, anextranet allows GM employees to send electronic messages and documents to its steeland rubber suppliers and to communicate with its dealers. Similarly, all Wal-Martvendors are linked into its extranet system, allowing Wal-Mart buyers to easilycommunicate with the company’s suppliers and for suppliers to monitor the inventorystatus of its products at Wal-Mart stores.

Videoconferencing Videoconferencing is an extension of intranet or extranetsystems. It permits employees in an organization to have meetings with people at dif-ferent locations. Live audio and video images of members allow them to see, hear,and talk with each other. Videoconferencing technology, in effect, allows employeesto conduct interactive meetings without the necessity of all being physically in thesame location.

In the late 1990s, videoconferencing was basically conducted from special roomsequipped with television cameras at company facilities. More recently, cameras andmicrophones are being attached to individual computers, allowing people to partici-pate in videoconferences without leaving their desks. As the cost of this technologydrops in price, videoconferencing is likely to be increasingly seen as an alternative toexpensive and time-consuming travel.

Summary Computer-aided communications are reshaping the way we communi-cate in organizations. It’s no longer necessary for employees to be at their workstations or desks to be “available.” Pagers, cellular phones, personal communicators,and phone messaging allow employees to be reached virtually anywhere, at any time.As a result, boundaries—between work and nonwork, within organizations andbetween organizations—are becoming blurred.

Knowledge Management

Knowledge management (KM) is a process of organizing and distributing an organi-zation’s collective wisdom so the right information gets to the right people at the righttime.15 When done properly, KM provides an organization with both a competitiveedge and improved organizational performance because it makes its employees smarter.



Knowledge management is increasingly important today for at least threereasons:16

1. In many organizations, intellectual assets are now as important as physical or finan-cial assets. Organizations that can quickly and efficiently tap into their employees’collective experience and wisdom are more likely to outsmart their competition.

2. As baby boomers begin to leave the workforce, awareness is increasing that they rep-resent a wealth of knowledge that will be lost if no attempts are made to capture it.

3. A well-designed KM system will reduce redundancy and make the organization moreefficient. A knowledge-management system can allow employees undertaking a newproject to access what previous employees have learned and cut wasteful time retrac-ing a path that has already been traveled.

KM begins by identifying what knowledge matters to the organization.17

Management needs to review processes to identify those that provide the most value.Then it can develop computer networks and databases that can make that informationreadily available to the people who need it the most. But KM won’t work unless theculture supports sharing of information.18 Finally, KM must provide the mechanismsand the motivation for employees to share knowledge that employees find useful onthe job and enables them to achieve better performance.19 More knowledge isn’t nec-essarily better knowledge. Information overload must be avoided by designing the sys-tem to capture only pertinent information and then organizing it so it can be quicklyaccessed by the people whom it can help.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

A number of barriers can retard or distort effective communication. Let’s examine themore important of these barriers.

Filtering

Filtering refers to a sender’s purposely manipulating information so it will be seenmore favorably by the receiver. For example, when a manager tells his boss what hefeels his boss wants to hear, he is filtering information.

The major determinant of filtering is the number of levels in an organization’sstructure. The more vertical levels in the organization’s hierarchy, the more opportu-nities exist for filtering. But you can expect some filtering to occur wherever status dif-ferences occur. Factors such as fear of conveying bad news and the desire to pleaseone’s boss often lead employees to tell their superiors what they think those superiorswant to hear, thus distorting upward communication.

Selective Perception

Chapter 4 introduced selective perception as one of the frequently used shortcuts peo-ple use when judging others. We broach the topic again here because the receivers in thecommunication process selectively see and hear based on their needs, motivations, expe-rience, backgrounds, and other personal characteristics. Receivers also project theirinterests and expectations into communications as they decode them. The employmentinterviewer who expects a female job applicant to put her family ahead of her career islikely to see that in female applicants, regardless of whether the applicants feel that wayor not. Human beings don’t see reality; we interpret what we see and call it reality.


Documents

Personality and Values - · PDF fileIdentify the key traits in the Big Five personality model. 4. ... CHAPTER 3 Personality and Values Our personality shapes our behavior,